- Email: [email protected]
Barriers of HACCP team members to guideline adherence
Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22 www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont
Barriers of HACCP team members to guideline adherence Ma. Patricia V. Azanza *, Myrna Benita V. Zamora-Luna Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines Received 29 September 2003; received in revised form 9 October 2003; accepted 9 October 2003
Abstract A cognitive-behavior model to evaluate barriers to HACCP guideline adherence by HACCP team members was developed. It was based on the theory of experiential learning where knowledge, attitude and behavior must be sequentially overcome. Twentyseven HACCP team members from four food processors participated to assess barriers to guideline adherence. Non-awareness to HACCP guideline was a major barrier. The national government was recognized as key source of HACCP information. Commitment to adopt HACCP guideline was established. Also, the need for food processor management to understand that teams must be multidisciplinary to ensure guideline adherence has been established. 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: HACCP guideline; Barrier model; Adherence
1. Introduction Hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) is a food safety tool that is more recently advocated by international and national regulatory institutions as either voluntary or mandatory prescription to food processing (Gilling, Taylor, Kane, & Taylor, 2001; Suwanrangsi, 2000; Taylor, 2001; Torres, 2000; Wallace & Williams, 2001). These recent advocacy efforts to propel HACCP implementation are now in fact overwhelmingly evident in most food safety government programs. Despite the orchestrated efforts of international institutions like Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) to drum up HACCP awareness and compliance, only food industries in more developed countries are currently apt to immediately implement this food safety tool. The Philippine government, as signatory of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Uruguay Round Final Act, and now as member nation of World Trade Organization, abides by the provisions of the Treaty including the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SCRA, 1997). Under this Agreement, the Philippine government is
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +632-920-5301; fax: +632-926-1449/ 926-2813/920-5473/920-2091. E-mail address: [email protected] (Ma.P.V. Azanza). 0956-7135/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2003.10.009
encouraged to harmonize its national food safety measures with international standards, guidelines and recommendations developed by international regulatory agencies, primarily the CAC. The HACCP guideline has been recommended by CAC as part of its revised guidelines on the General Principles of Food Hygiene as early as 1993 (Fogden, 2000). In a memorandum from the Office of the President of the Philippines, Malaca~ nang, Philippines to the secretaries of various concerned food regulatory agencies and its affiliates, a directive was issued pertaining to the accreditation program for food processors that stipulates that Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and HACCP be the underlying systems for processing of safe foods for export (Ramos, 1997). Although large-scale food processing establishments have been identified as key players in Philippine economy, micro- to small-scale establishments still have a significant contribution to the viability of the food economy sector. The smaller food industries in this country are numerous as a result of chronic national economic problems, which is further aggravated by the more recent political turmoils (Marfil & Pablo, 2002; Pablo, Javellana, & Marfil, 2002). Prompting the underdeveloped food industry sectors towards HACCP guideline awareness, implementation and adherence tends to be more difficult because these industries are reported to be ill-equipped with the required industry intrinsic support system to attain it (Taylor, 2001).
16
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
Likewise, these less developed industries are less likely to invest in HACCP knowledge acquisition. Problems in guideline adherence by underdeveloped food industries have been reported to be partly mitigated by understanding in-depth of the specific barriers to compliance (Cabana et al., 1999; Gilling et al., 2001). Utilizing the behavioral adherence model for technical barrier assessment for specific food industry has been reported previously to facilitate identification of appropriate intervention strategies for HACCP adherence (Gilling et al., 2001). The HACCP plan implementation is generally vested upon the efforts of a team in an establishment rather than on the commitment of a single individual. This study for the first time, evaluated HACCP guideline adherence barriers specific to HACCP team members of micro- to small-scale beverage and meat processors. Baseline information established in this study could
facilitate HACCP implementation in the local micro- to small-scale food processing industries thru the understanding of barriers to guideline adherence.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence The study developed a cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence for individuals comprising the HACCP team (Fig. 1). The model was established by consolidating various concepts from similar models used in assessing physician adherence to medical guideline (Cabana et al., 1999; Pathman, Konrad, Freed, Freeman, & Koch, 1996) and food industry adherence to HACCP guideline (Gilling et al., 2001).
HACCP GUIDELINE
Awareness KNOWLEDGE
Familiarity
Industry intrinsic and extrinsic factors • Accessibility of HACCP information • Adequacy of HACCP information • Adequacy of Time to comprehend HACCP information
Comprehension
Agreement Industry intrinsic factors (Human response factors)
ATTITUDE Commitment
• • •
Outcome expectancy Self-efficacy Motivation
Industry intrinsic factors Adoption
• •
BEHAVIOR
Cueing mechanisms Resources • Time • Manpower • Equipment/facilities • Financial resources • Others
Industry extrinsic factors
Adherence
• •
Guideline factor Environmental factors • Government • Media • Consumers • Market • Technical consultants
Fig. 1. Cognitive and behavior model to HACCP principle adherence.
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
Briefly, the consolidated model divided the major barrier categories into knowledge, attitude and behavior. Subcategories of these general barriers included awareness, familiarity and comprehension for knowledge while the subcategories for attitude major barrier comprised of agreement and commitment. Adoption and adherence were the subcategories for the last major barrier, behavior. The study further classified each subcategory into themes of barriers as industry intrinsic or extrinsic factors. The research proponents formulated working definitions included in the consolidated model through a series of brainstorming sessions. 2.2. Survey of respondents The survey to assess the barriers to HACCP guideline adherence specific to HACCP team members of microand small-scale food processors was conducted as part of 2 research projects aimed to develop HACCP plans for these industries. Participating small-scale food processing industries were defined based on the amended Philippine Magna Carta for Small Scale Enterprises (Republic Act 8289). Micro-scale industries were business establishments having a capital outlay of 6 US $30,000 (PhP 1.5 M), excluding the cost of land where the plant and equipment are located, whereas smallscale industries have >US $30,000 6 $300,000 ( 6 PhP15 M). The respondents of the survey were recruited from HACCP team members of participating industries in the two earlier mentioned studies. Communications were made to HACCP team members from small-scale meat processors from Pampanga (n ¼ 16) and micro- to small-scale beverage processors of the National Capital Region and Region 4 (n ¼ 48), Philippines to recruit survey respondents. The names of government-registered beverage and meat processors were obtained from the Department of Trade and Industry, Bureau of Food and Drug, and Local Government Units. Additional names of food processors were also obtained from professional organizations including Pampanga Association of Meat Processors and Foundation of Food Science and Technology, Inc. The names of unregistered processors, referred by other processors and vendors encountered in the test areas were also included in the lists. The modes of communication used to recruit participants were through the following, used either singly or in combination: electronic and ordinary mails, field visits, or telephone calls. Amongst those who responded positively to the recruitment phase of the survey were two HACCP team members of processors per test industry. 2.3. The HACCP technical barrier survey A questionnaire was designed based on the developed cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP principle
17
adherence (Fig. 1) for members of the HACCP teams. Briefly, it included questions on demographics and, levels of knowledge, attitude and behavior barriers of respondents to HACCP guideline. The survey tool included some questions with multiple choices for the answers and other open-ended queries (Table 1). For awareness and familiarity of HACCP guideline under the knowledge major barrier, the interrogative pronouns: when, from whom and where were used to query about pertinent HACCP knowledge information. Questions on accessibility and adequacy of HACCP information were likewise included under the knowledge barrier category. The role of external sources of HACCP information including government, media, consumer, market and technical consultants in the adoption of the guideline were likewise asked. The capability of individual members to sustain guideline implementation was placed under the adherence major barrier. Follow-up questions were used to fully elucidate details of some unclear responses. The HACCP team members were individually asked to respond to the questionnaire using the face-to-face narrative interview technique. The interview was conducted by the research proponents who read each of the questions aloud during the interview. Respondents were given adequate time to answer each query in writing. Questions were translated to the appropriate regional dialects to which survey respondents were more familiar with when necessary. Results of the study were tabulated. Frequency and percentage distributions were calculated (Gatchalian, 1989).
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence The developed cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence in the study (Fig. 1) was modified from similar guideline adherence models generated by Pathman et al. (1996) and Cabana et al. (1999) for medical guidelines, and Gilling et al. (2001) for HACCP guideline. The ladderized barrier concept for evaluation of knowledge, attitude and behavior in guideline adherence as presented by both Cabana et al. (1999) and Gilling et al. (2001) was adopted in this new developed model as general barrier categories. The generated working definitions for the general barrier categories included: knowledge as a body of acquired facts; attitude as mental reaction to knowledge; and behavior as the action taken as a result of knowledge acquisition and attitude development. It was hypothesized in the developed barrier model for HACCP guidance adherence that the HACCP team member designate must first become aware, and be
18
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
Table 1 Details of survey tool used to determine technical barriers of HACCP team members to HACCP guideline adherence Barrier
Subcategories
Survey items
Knowledge A body of acquired facts
Awareness First heard or read about the guideline
Familiarity Denotes fuller knowledge based on continues awareness but still without complete understanding of the essence of the guideline as they were originally designed Comprehension Denotes familiarity with the guideline with full understanding, proximate to the essence of the concept as it was originally designed Attitude Mental reaction to knowledge
Agreement Belief in the HACCP guideline, in general or some parts of it
Commitment Pledge to adopt the guideline Behavior Action taken as a result of knowledge acquisition and attitude development
Adoption Putting the guideline into action, change in practice
Adherence Sustained adoption
exposed to the guideline at least more than once before comprehension is attained. Having full understanding of the principles, the team member was assumed to develop the proper attitude which may subsequently lead to agreement and commitment. Such attitude was expected to cause a change in behavior through adoption and finally adherence to the guideline. However, it was expected that HACCP knowledge acquisition alone could not ensure HACCP guideline compliance. Gilling et al. (2001) reported that right attitude should be supported by the appropriate industry intrinsic and extrinsic environmental factors to facilitate HACCP compliance (Fig. 1). 3.2. Profile of HACCP team members respondents The HACCP team member respondents of the study belonged to micro- to small-scale industries (Table 2). It has been previously reported that micro- to small-scale food industries are generally not in the position to
When have you first heard or read about the HACCP guideline? • Now • Last 6 months • Last year • Last 2 years • Last 3 years or more Are you able to use the term HACCP and its related concepts in casual discussions? If yes, cite specific situations.
What is the impact of the HACCP guideline implementable to the operations of your company? To what extent do you agree with the HACCP guideline? • Full/in general • Partial • Not at all Are you willing to pledge to adopt the HACCP guideline in your line of work? Are you willing to put the HACCP guideline into action? • Yes • No Do you think as a member of your company, you can sustain the implementation of the HACCP guideline in your line of work? Briefly explain your answer
implement the HACCP guideline due to their small company size, lack of technical expertise and training, rapid turnover of trained personnel, and lack of appropriate resources support prerequisites to HACCP guideline adherence (Panisello & Quantick, 2001; Taylor, 2001; Torres, 2000). The CAC and World Health Organization (WHO) fortunately, in its effort to address the unique needs of the small and less developed food processing industries, sponsored the development of fundamental strategies for implementing HACCP in these level of industries (WHO, 1999). However, the formal schemes to facilitate the actual implementation of the strategies for underdeveloped food businesses are yet to be fully realized. The survey respondents belonged to HACCP teams comprising of 4–10 members representing various work divisions in their companies (Table 2). Ideally, HACCP team members should be multidisciplinary consisting of individuals who have the appropriate technical skills and expertise about the product and its processes (NAC-
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
19
Table 2 Profile of HACCP team member survey respondents coming from meat and beverage industries Food industry profile
Meat industry 1. Meat processor small scale, 30 y operational, 100 workers, 2 shifts/d (8 h/shift), 2 t nitrite-cured meat production/d
2. Meat processor small scale, operational for 30 yrs, employed 100 workers, 2 shifts/d (8 h/shift), 2 production/d t nitrite-cured meat Beverage industry 1. Beverage processor micro-scale, 12 y operational, 18 workers, 2200 cup production/d (300 ml cup), 500 bottle production/d (500 ml bottle) young coconut juice 2. Beverage processorb micro-scale, 10 y operational, 5 workers, 300 cup production/d young coconut juice (300 ml cup)
Team member (n)
10
Category distribution (%)a Gender
Position in the establishment
Female
90
Male
10
Research and Development Officer Quality control officer
Highest educational level
10
Tertiary level
80
80
Food Technology and Nutrition Management Education Computer Science and Engineering Secondary level Vocational (i.e. Secretarial)
10 10
Draftsman
10
Female Male
50 50
Supervisor Line Worker
12 88
Secondary level Vocational Computer Technology Secretarial
80 20
Female
50
Owner
25
25
4
Male
50
Supervisor
75
Masters level (i.e. Child Psychology) Tertiary level Business Administration Hotel and Restaurant Management
5
Female Male
60 40
Supervisor Line Worker
20 80
8
Primary level Secondary level
75
60 40
n, number of HACCP team members per establishment. a Percent values relative to number of HACCP team members per establishment. b Cooperative-base.
MCF, 1999). Unfortunately, majority of the members of the HACCP teams from the two participating meat processors essentially came from similar work sectors. The HACCP team member respondents from 1 meat processor were all quality control officers, while the team from the other meat processor was constituted with mostly line workers. The apparent inappropriate constitution of the meat HACCP teams may have been mainly based on the decision of their respective managements. The organizational set-up of the micro- and small-scale processing industries are not complex and major decisions are traditionally the unilateral responsibility of the management rather than any other sector of the company. The sectoral skewdness of the group composition for the HACCP teams for meat processors lends itself to a limited perspective and lack of technical expertise to all significant aspects of the product and its processes that might be pertinent to the HACCP plans. The memberships of the beverage HACCP teams were more appropriately assembled as multidisciplinary groups. The respondents from HACCP teams of the
beverage industries were from various disciplines including personnel from: the research and development, production, quality control and, sales and marketing. The multidisciplinary membership of the beverage HACCP teams might not be again based on the critical view of the responsible management on the appropriate constitution of the teams but rather more as a consequence of the diminutive nature of the company. Choice of the HACCP team members was quite limited in the participating beverage processors considering the very small employment numbers which were composed of 5–18 workers only (Table 2). The educational background of HACCP team members was quite diverse. There were those who completed tertiary education. Others, however, were only able to have vocational training and some primary education. For those teams consisting of mostly undereducated members, technical difficulties in acquiring knowledge and transposing these into implementable activities might be encountered. The apparent educational inadequacy of some of the members of the teams might be
20
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
further aggravated by the fact that small companies may have limited access to HACCP information and provide less resources for skill development for them (Taylor, 2001). The gender profile of the HACCP team member designates indicated inclusion of 50–90% female. In a matriarchal society such as the Philippines, females tend to dominate food management concerns (Fernandez & Alegre, 1988). The female-skewdness of the HACCP team composition is, therefore, expected since assurance of food safety is usually associated with women in the country. 3.3. Knowledge level The knowledge-, attitude- and behavior-related barriers of HACCP team members of micro-to small-scale meat and beverage processors are shown in Table 3. Results showed that most of the respondents were not aware of HACCP principles and tasks. Familiarity was the highest knowledge level achieved among the respondents. This current HACCP knowledge level of the respondents may be due in part to the inadequate and inappropriate information dissemination systems available within the country. Based on a more general industry perspective, Gilling et al. (2001) similarly identified lack of awareness of the HACCP guideline as one of the technical barriers restricting HACCP guideline adherence in U.K. food processing establishments. However, this was true only for a small proportion of food businesses in the UK. There may be a disparity in HACCP awareness levels of food processors in the Philippines and UK. which could
be attributed to the more widespread and comprehensive HACCP information dissemination efforts exerted by the better developed country (Gilling et al., 2001; Taylor, 2001). Details of HACCP knowledge-based barriers identified by HACCP team member survey respondents are presented in Table 4. Since majority of the respondents did not go beyond the familiarity level, they were unable to identify intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing knowledge barriers (Fig. 1). For the few who were aware and already familiar with the HACCP guideline, time and accessibility of HACCP information were of prime importance to attain full comprehension that could eventually lead to a change in behavior. Fortunately, the Philippine national government was the main external source of information although limited through the conduct of seminars/workshops by concerned agencies. The National Meat and Inspection Commission, Philippines and University of the Philippines Diliman were the government agencies specified by respondents to provide HACCP information. According to the respondents who graduated from tertiary education in food technology and food science related fields, academic institutions offering undergraduate degree in food technology programs now covered HACCP in their curricula. Majority of the respondents who had some level of HACCP knowledge still perceived that HACCP information from available sources were limited. Even if the information were made available HACCP team members still felt that they were not generally given adequate time to fully comprehend it. In the Philippines, HACCP information dissemination systems usually comprised of seminars/workshops that
Table 3 Barriers to HACCP principle adherence by HACCP team members from micro- to small-scale meat and beverage processing industries Barrier
Subcategories
Percentage distribution (%) Meat industry Team 1 (n ¼ 10)
Knowledge
Attitude
Behavior
Beverage industry Team 2 (n ¼ 8)
Team 1 (n ¼ 4)
Team 2 (n ¼ 5)
Non-awareness No previous exposure to HACCP principles Awareness Once heard or read Familiarity >1 exposure but without full understanding
40
100
25
80
40
0
50
0
20
0
25
20
Agreement Full-belief in HACCP principles Commitment Pledge to adopt No response Lack of knowledge of HACCP principles
30
0
25
20
40
0
25
20
30
100
50
60
100
100
100
100
No response Lack of knowledge of HACCP principles
n, number of team members per establishment.
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
21
Table 4 Knowledge-based barriers to HACCP principle adherence identified by HACCP team members from micro-small-scale meat and beverage processing industries Knowledge acquisition barriers
Percentage distribution (%) Meat industry
Beverage industry
Team 1 (n ¼ 10)
Team 2 (n ¼ 8)
Team 1 (n ¼ 4)
Team 2 (n ¼ 5)
Sources of HACCP information are obtained from. . . . . .Industry intrinsic sources . . .Co-worker . . .No response . . .Industry extrinsic sources like . . .Seminar/workshop conducted by. . . . . .Government . . .Academe . . .No response
60 40
0 100
50 50
0 100
40 10 50
0 0 100
50 10 50
20 0 80
Accessibility of HACCP information from identified source is. . . . . .Easy . . .Not easy . . .No response
0 90 10
0 0 100
0 75 25
20 0 80
Adequacy of HACCP information from identified source is. . . . . .Satisfactory . . .Not satisfactory . . .No response
10 80 10
0 0 100
25 75 0
0 20 80
Adequacy of time to comprehend HACCP information from identified sources is. . . . . .Satisfactory . . .Not satisfactory . . .No response
10 80 10
0 0 100
0 75 25
20 0 80
n, number of team members per establishment; total„100% due to multiple answers.
are characteristically providing copious amount of information for short periods of time. Evaluations of the efficacy of such HACCP seminar/workshops, however, are rarely done. 3.4. Attitude and behavior levels In terms of attitude and behavior-related barriers, this study considers non-awareness to be translated to the inability of the team members to develop the proper attitude toward the HACCP guideline. In fact, inadequate knowledge level is the reason for non-adoption of the guideline. To the survey respondents who only reached knowledge levels of awareness and familiarity, agreement and commitment were fortunately already expressed. Ideally, HACCP team members should have attained full comprehension to develop the proper attitude towards the guideline. Theoretically, the cognitive-behavior model developed in this study should require that each member must have full knowledge of what the HACCP guideline is all about, develop an action concept of what appropriate behavior would lead to the efficient functioning of the HACCP plan, develop positive attitudes towards HACCP procedures and a belief that the team is capable of implementing plans (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). This
model follows the basic concept of experiential learning where awareness is a requisite for expansion of skill performance (Bandura, 1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Stage & Associates, 1993). The HACCP learner therefore, must comprehend the guideline to be able to develop positive attitude and behavior towards it. The application of the cognitive-behavior barrier model for HACCP guideline adherence could still be further studied particularly for HACCP team members who belong to establishments, which are already HACCP compliant. Comparison of results generated in this study which, is based on responses of HACCP team members from teams which are still in its early stage of HACCP plan implementation, must be compared with the results obtained from responses of those who belonged to HACCP compliant processors. Only at this point could the model be fully evaluated and appreciated.
4. Summary and recommendations The cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence designed in the study presents the sequence of barriers that must be overcome by HACCP team member designates to finally reach a point conducive to HACCP adherence. The model starts with
22
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
knowledge acquisition followed by proper attitude development leading to eventual behavioral change targeting adherence. The model tries to provide niches for possible identifiable barriers within the major categories cited. The study was conducted to analyze barriers that impede HACCP guideline adherence of 27 HACCP team members from four micro- to small-scale Philippine food processors. The study established that nonawareness of respondents of the HACCP guidelines was the major barrier to adherence. Currently the major external source of HACCP information for the team members is the national government mainly through seminars/workshops. Respondents showed an optimistic attitude toward HACCP guideline implementation despite their low HACCP knowledge competence level. It is evident that the management responsible for the HACCP team membership needs to fully appreciate the fundamental concept of the group to be multidisciplinary. The respondents from HACCP teams were found to be multidisciplinary have been formed only accidentally since the processors involved had limited employees and had to include everyone to the team. More intensive knowledge-based intervention strategies specifically designed for HACCP team members must be formulated and implemented as an initial step to achieve HACCP guideline adherence. Furthermore, government and other sources of HACCP information must continue to advocate HACCP adherence in Philippine food industries. Additional efforts on a national scale must be exerted to make HACCP information more accessible. The usefulness of the developed HACCP guideline cognitive-behavior barrier model could still be further studied. Results from this study should be used to better educate HACCP instructors and industry implementors. References Bandura, A. (1986). A social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P. A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999). Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(15), 1458–1465.
Fernandez, D. G., & Alegre, E. N. (1988). Sarap: Essays on Philippine food. Manila, Philippines: Mr. and Mrs. Publishing Company. Fogden, M. (2000). The regulatory context in the EU. In M. Brown (Ed.), HACCP in the meat industry. England: Woodhead Publishing Limited. Gatchalian, M. (1989). Sensory Evaluation Methods for Quality Assessment and Development. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines College of Home Economics. Gilling, S. J., Taylor, E. A., Kane, K., & Taylor, J. Z. (2001). Successful hazards analysis critical control point implementation in the United Kingdom: understanding the barriers through the use of a behavioral adherence model. Journal of Food Protection, 64(5), 710–715. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1987). Joining together group theory and group skills. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Marfil, M. P., & Pablo, C. (2002). 1700 troops coming, big number ‘‘normal’’ for Balikatan 02–2 set next month. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17(102), A1–A18. NACMCF (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods) (1999). Hazard analysis and critical control point principles and application guidelines. In K. E. Stevenson, & D. T. Bernard (Eds.), HACCP a systematic approach to food safety (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: The Food Processors Institute. Pablo, C., Javellana, J. L., & Marfil, M. P. (2002). And 300 more going to Basilan. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17(102), A1–A18. Panisello, P. J., & Quantick, P. C. (2001). Technical barriers to hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP). Food Control, 12, 165– 173. Pathman, D. E., Konrad, T. R., Freed, G. L., Freeman, V. A., & Koch, G. G. (1996). The awareness-to-adherence model of steps to clinical guideline compliance. Medical Care, 34(9), 873– 889. Ramos, F. V. R. (1997). Memorandum from the President (May 27, 1997): Accreditation Program for Food Exporters (pp. 1–5). Office of the President of the Philippines, Malaca~ nang, Philippines. Stage, F. K., & Associates (1993). Linking theory to practice case studies from working with college students. Accelerated Devt., Inc Muncie, Indiana. SCRA (Supreme Court Reports Annotated) (1997). Ta~ nada vs. Angara (Vol. 272, pp. 18, 40–41). Quezon City, Philippines: LPB, Inc. Suwanrangsi, S. (2000). HACCP implementation in the Thai fisheries industry. Food Control, 11, 377–382. Taylor, E. (2001). HACCP in small companies: benefit or burden. Food Control, 12, 217–222. Torres, D. H. (2000). Role of government in HACCP audit: a Cuban perspective. Food Control, 11, 365–369. Wallace, C., & Williams, T. (2001). Pre-requisites: a help or a hindrance to HACCP. Food Control, 12, 234–240. WHO (World Health Organization) (1999). Strategies for implementing HACCP in small and/or less developed businesses. WHO Document WHO/SDE/PHE/FS/99.7. Geneva: WHO.
Barriers of HACCP team members to guideline adherence Ma. Patricia V. Azanza *, Myrna Benita V. Zamora-Luna Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Home Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines Received 29 September 2003; received in revised form 9 October 2003; accepted 9 October 2003
Abstract A cognitive-behavior model to evaluate barriers to HACCP guideline adherence by HACCP team members was developed. It was based on the theory of experiential learning where knowledge, attitude and behavior must be sequentially overcome. Twentyseven HACCP team members from four food processors participated to assess barriers to guideline adherence. Non-awareness to HACCP guideline was a major barrier. The national government was recognized as key source of HACCP information. Commitment to adopt HACCP guideline was established. Also, the need for food processor management to understand that teams must be multidisciplinary to ensure guideline adherence has been established. 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: HACCP guideline; Barrier model; Adherence
1. Introduction Hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) is a food safety tool that is more recently advocated by international and national regulatory institutions as either voluntary or mandatory prescription to food processing (Gilling, Taylor, Kane, & Taylor, 2001; Suwanrangsi, 2000; Taylor, 2001; Torres, 2000; Wallace & Williams, 2001). These recent advocacy efforts to propel HACCP implementation are now in fact overwhelmingly evident in most food safety government programs. Despite the orchestrated efforts of international institutions like Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) to drum up HACCP awareness and compliance, only food industries in more developed countries are currently apt to immediately implement this food safety tool. The Philippine government, as signatory of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Uruguay Round Final Act, and now as member nation of World Trade Organization, abides by the provisions of the Treaty including the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SCRA, 1997). Under this Agreement, the Philippine government is
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +632-920-5301; fax: +632-926-1449/ 926-2813/920-5473/920-2091. E-mail address: [email protected] (Ma.P.V. Azanza). 0956-7135/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2003.10.009
encouraged to harmonize its national food safety measures with international standards, guidelines and recommendations developed by international regulatory agencies, primarily the CAC. The HACCP guideline has been recommended by CAC as part of its revised guidelines on the General Principles of Food Hygiene as early as 1993 (Fogden, 2000). In a memorandum from the Office of the President of the Philippines, Malaca~ nang, Philippines to the secretaries of various concerned food regulatory agencies and its affiliates, a directive was issued pertaining to the accreditation program for food processors that stipulates that Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and HACCP be the underlying systems for processing of safe foods for export (Ramos, 1997). Although large-scale food processing establishments have been identified as key players in Philippine economy, micro- to small-scale establishments still have a significant contribution to the viability of the food economy sector. The smaller food industries in this country are numerous as a result of chronic national economic problems, which is further aggravated by the more recent political turmoils (Marfil & Pablo, 2002; Pablo, Javellana, & Marfil, 2002). Prompting the underdeveloped food industry sectors towards HACCP guideline awareness, implementation and adherence tends to be more difficult because these industries are reported to be ill-equipped with the required industry intrinsic support system to attain it (Taylor, 2001).
16
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
Likewise, these less developed industries are less likely to invest in HACCP knowledge acquisition. Problems in guideline adherence by underdeveloped food industries have been reported to be partly mitigated by understanding in-depth of the specific barriers to compliance (Cabana et al., 1999; Gilling et al., 2001). Utilizing the behavioral adherence model for technical barrier assessment for specific food industry has been reported previously to facilitate identification of appropriate intervention strategies for HACCP adherence (Gilling et al., 2001). The HACCP plan implementation is generally vested upon the efforts of a team in an establishment rather than on the commitment of a single individual. This study for the first time, evaluated HACCP guideline adherence barriers specific to HACCP team members of micro- to small-scale beverage and meat processors. Baseline information established in this study could
facilitate HACCP implementation in the local micro- to small-scale food processing industries thru the understanding of barriers to guideline adherence.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence The study developed a cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence for individuals comprising the HACCP team (Fig. 1). The model was established by consolidating various concepts from similar models used in assessing physician adherence to medical guideline (Cabana et al., 1999; Pathman, Konrad, Freed, Freeman, & Koch, 1996) and food industry adherence to HACCP guideline (Gilling et al., 2001).
HACCP GUIDELINE
Awareness KNOWLEDGE
Familiarity
Industry intrinsic and extrinsic factors • Accessibility of HACCP information • Adequacy of HACCP information • Adequacy of Time to comprehend HACCP information
Comprehension
Agreement Industry intrinsic factors (Human response factors)
ATTITUDE Commitment
• • •
Outcome expectancy Self-efficacy Motivation
Industry intrinsic factors Adoption
• •
BEHAVIOR
Cueing mechanisms Resources • Time • Manpower • Equipment/facilities • Financial resources • Others
Industry extrinsic factors
Adherence
• •
Guideline factor Environmental factors • Government • Media • Consumers • Market • Technical consultants
Fig. 1. Cognitive and behavior model to HACCP principle adherence.
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
Briefly, the consolidated model divided the major barrier categories into knowledge, attitude and behavior. Subcategories of these general barriers included awareness, familiarity and comprehension for knowledge while the subcategories for attitude major barrier comprised of agreement and commitment. Adoption and adherence were the subcategories for the last major barrier, behavior. The study further classified each subcategory into themes of barriers as industry intrinsic or extrinsic factors. The research proponents formulated working definitions included in the consolidated model through a series of brainstorming sessions. 2.2. Survey of respondents The survey to assess the barriers to HACCP guideline adherence specific to HACCP team members of microand small-scale food processors was conducted as part of 2 research projects aimed to develop HACCP plans for these industries. Participating small-scale food processing industries were defined based on the amended Philippine Magna Carta for Small Scale Enterprises (Republic Act 8289). Micro-scale industries were business establishments having a capital outlay of 6 US $30,000 (PhP 1.5 M), excluding the cost of land where the plant and equipment are located, whereas smallscale industries have >US $30,000 6 $300,000 ( 6 PhP15 M). The respondents of the survey were recruited from HACCP team members of participating industries in the two earlier mentioned studies. Communications were made to HACCP team members from small-scale meat processors from Pampanga (n ¼ 16) and micro- to small-scale beverage processors of the National Capital Region and Region 4 (n ¼ 48), Philippines to recruit survey respondents. The names of government-registered beverage and meat processors were obtained from the Department of Trade and Industry, Bureau of Food and Drug, and Local Government Units. Additional names of food processors were also obtained from professional organizations including Pampanga Association of Meat Processors and Foundation of Food Science and Technology, Inc. The names of unregistered processors, referred by other processors and vendors encountered in the test areas were also included in the lists. The modes of communication used to recruit participants were through the following, used either singly or in combination: electronic and ordinary mails, field visits, or telephone calls. Amongst those who responded positively to the recruitment phase of the survey were two HACCP team members of processors per test industry. 2.3. The HACCP technical barrier survey A questionnaire was designed based on the developed cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP principle
17
adherence (Fig. 1) for members of the HACCP teams. Briefly, it included questions on demographics and, levels of knowledge, attitude and behavior barriers of respondents to HACCP guideline. The survey tool included some questions with multiple choices for the answers and other open-ended queries (Table 1). For awareness and familiarity of HACCP guideline under the knowledge major barrier, the interrogative pronouns: when, from whom and where were used to query about pertinent HACCP knowledge information. Questions on accessibility and adequacy of HACCP information were likewise included under the knowledge barrier category. The role of external sources of HACCP information including government, media, consumer, market and technical consultants in the adoption of the guideline were likewise asked. The capability of individual members to sustain guideline implementation was placed under the adherence major barrier. Follow-up questions were used to fully elucidate details of some unclear responses. The HACCP team members were individually asked to respond to the questionnaire using the face-to-face narrative interview technique. The interview was conducted by the research proponents who read each of the questions aloud during the interview. Respondents were given adequate time to answer each query in writing. Questions were translated to the appropriate regional dialects to which survey respondents were more familiar with when necessary. Results of the study were tabulated. Frequency and percentage distributions were calculated (Gatchalian, 1989).
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence The developed cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence in the study (Fig. 1) was modified from similar guideline adherence models generated by Pathman et al. (1996) and Cabana et al. (1999) for medical guidelines, and Gilling et al. (2001) for HACCP guideline. The ladderized barrier concept for evaluation of knowledge, attitude and behavior in guideline adherence as presented by both Cabana et al. (1999) and Gilling et al. (2001) was adopted in this new developed model as general barrier categories. The generated working definitions for the general barrier categories included: knowledge as a body of acquired facts; attitude as mental reaction to knowledge; and behavior as the action taken as a result of knowledge acquisition and attitude development. It was hypothesized in the developed barrier model for HACCP guidance adherence that the HACCP team member designate must first become aware, and be
18
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
Table 1 Details of survey tool used to determine technical barriers of HACCP team members to HACCP guideline adherence Barrier
Subcategories
Survey items
Knowledge A body of acquired facts
Awareness First heard or read about the guideline
Familiarity Denotes fuller knowledge based on continues awareness but still without complete understanding of the essence of the guideline as they were originally designed Comprehension Denotes familiarity with the guideline with full understanding, proximate to the essence of the concept as it was originally designed Attitude Mental reaction to knowledge
Agreement Belief in the HACCP guideline, in general or some parts of it
Commitment Pledge to adopt the guideline Behavior Action taken as a result of knowledge acquisition and attitude development
Adoption Putting the guideline into action, change in practice
Adherence Sustained adoption
exposed to the guideline at least more than once before comprehension is attained. Having full understanding of the principles, the team member was assumed to develop the proper attitude which may subsequently lead to agreement and commitment. Such attitude was expected to cause a change in behavior through adoption and finally adherence to the guideline. However, it was expected that HACCP knowledge acquisition alone could not ensure HACCP guideline compliance. Gilling et al. (2001) reported that right attitude should be supported by the appropriate industry intrinsic and extrinsic environmental factors to facilitate HACCP compliance (Fig. 1). 3.2. Profile of HACCP team members respondents The HACCP team member respondents of the study belonged to micro- to small-scale industries (Table 2). It has been previously reported that micro- to small-scale food industries are generally not in the position to
When have you first heard or read about the HACCP guideline? • Now • Last 6 months • Last year • Last 2 years • Last 3 years or more Are you able to use the term HACCP and its related concepts in casual discussions? If yes, cite specific situations.
What is the impact of the HACCP guideline implementable to the operations of your company? To what extent do you agree with the HACCP guideline? • Full/in general • Partial • Not at all Are you willing to pledge to adopt the HACCP guideline in your line of work? Are you willing to put the HACCP guideline into action? • Yes • No Do you think as a member of your company, you can sustain the implementation of the HACCP guideline in your line of work? Briefly explain your answer
implement the HACCP guideline due to their small company size, lack of technical expertise and training, rapid turnover of trained personnel, and lack of appropriate resources support prerequisites to HACCP guideline adherence (Panisello & Quantick, 2001; Taylor, 2001; Torres, 2000). The CAC and World Health Organization (WHO) fortunately, in its effort to address the unique needs of the small and less developed food processing industries, sponsored the development of fundamental strategies for implementing HACCP in these level of industries (WHO, 1999). However, the formal schemes to facilitate the actual implementation of the strategies for underdeveloped food businesses are yet to be fully realized. The survey respondents belonged to HACCP teams comprising of 4–10 members representing various work divisions in their companies (Table 2). Ideally, HACCP team members should be multidisciplinary consisting of individuals who have the appropriate technical skills and expertise about the product and its processes (NAC-
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
19
Table 2 Profile of HACCP team member survey respondents coming from meat and beverage industries Food industry profile
Meat industry 1. Meat processor small scale, 30 y operational, 100 workers, 2 shifts/d (8 h/shift), 2 t nitrite-cured meat production/d
2. Meat processor small scale, operational for 30 yrs, employed 100 workers, 2 shifts/d (8 h/shift), 2 production/d t nitrite-cured meat Beverage industry 1. Beverage processor micro-scale, 12 y operational, 18 workers, 2200 cup production/d (300 ml cup), 500 bottle production/d (500 ml bottle) young coconut juice 2. Beverage processorb micro-scale, 10 y operational, 5 workers, 300 cup production/d young coconut juice (300 ml cup)
Team member (n)
10
Category distribution (%)a Gender
Position in the establishment
Female
90
Male
10
Research and Development Officer Quality control officer
Highest educational level
10
Tertiary level
80
80
Food Technology and Nutrition Management Education Computer Science and Engineering Secondary level Vocational (i.e. Secretarial)
10 10
Draftsman
10
Female Male
50 50
Supervisor Line Worker
12 88
Secondary level Vocational Computer Technology Secretarial
80 20
Female
50
Owner
25
25
4
Male
50
Supervisor
75
Masters level (i.e. Child Psychology) Tertiary level Business Administration Hotel and Restaurant Management
5
Female Male
60 40
Supervisor Line Worker
20 80
8
Primary level Secondary level
75
60 40
n, number of HACCP team members per establishment. a Percent values relative to number of HACCP team members per establishment. b Cooperative-base.
MCF, 1999). Unfortunately, majority of the members of the HACCP teams from the two participating meat processors essentially came from similar work sectors. The HACCP team member respondents from 1 meat processor were all quality control officers, while the team from the other meat processor was constituted with mostly line workers. The apparent inappropriate constitution of the meat HACCP teams may have been mainly based on the decision of their respective managements. The organizational set-up of the micro- and small-scale processing industries are not complex and major decisions are traditionally the unilateral responsibility of the management rather than any other sector of the company. The sectoral skewdness of the group composition for the HACCP teams for meat processors lends itself to a limited perspective and lack of technical expertise to all significant aspects of the product and its processes that might be pertinent to the HACCP plans. The memberships of the beverage HACCP teams were more appropriately assembled as multidisciplinary groups. The respondents from HACCP teams of the
beverage industries were from various disciplines including personnel from: the research and development, production, quality control and, sales and marketing. The multidisciplinary membership of the beverage HACCP teams might not be again based on the critical view of the responsible management on the appropriate constitution of the teams but rather more as a consequence of the diminutive nature of the company. Choice of the HACCP team members was quite limited in the participating beverage processors considering the very small employment numbers which were composed of 5–18 workers only (Table 2). The educational background of HACCP team members was quite diverse. There were those who completed tertiary education. Others, however, were only able to have vocational training and some primary education. For those teams consisting of mostly undereducated members, technical difficulties in acquiring knowledge and transposing these into implementable activities might be encountered. The apparent educational inadequacy of some of the members of the teams might be
20
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
further aggravated by the fact that small companies may have limited access to HACCP information and provide less resources for skill development for them (Taylor, 2001). The gender profile of the HACCP team member designates indicated inclusion of 50–90% female. In a matriarchal society such as the Philippines, females tend to dominate food management concerns (Fernandez & Alegre, 1988). The female-skewdness of the HACCP team composition is, therefore, expected since assurance of food safety is usually associated with women in the country. 3.3. Knowledge level The knowledge-, attitude- and behavior-related barriers of HACCP team members of micro-to small-scale meat and beverage processors are shown in Table 3. Results showed that most of the respondents were not aware of HACCP principles and tasks. Familiarity was the highest knowledge level achieved among the respondents. This current HACCP knowledge level of the respondents may be due in part to the inadequate and inappropriate information dissemination systems available within the country. Based on a more general industry perspective, Gilling et al. (2001) similarly identified lack of awareness of the HACCP guideline as one of the technical barriers restricting HACCP guideline adherence in U.K. food processing establishments. However, this was true only for a small proportion of food businesses in the UK. There may be a disparity in HACCP awareness levels of food processors in the Philippines and UK. which could
be attributed to the more widespread and comprehensive HACCP information dissemination efforts exerted by the better developed country (Gilling et al., 2001; Taylor, 2001). Details of HACCP knowledge-based barriers identified by HACCP team member survey respondents are presented in Table 4. Since majority of the respondents did not go beyond the familiarity level, they were unable to identify intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing knowledge barriers (Fig. 1). For the few who were aware and already familiar with the HACCP guideline, time and accessibility of HACCP information were of prime importance to attain full comprehension that could eventually lead to a change in behavior. Fortunately, the Philippine national government was the main external source of information although limited through the conduct of seminars/workshops by concerned agencies. The National Meat and Inspection Commission, Philippines and University of the Philippines Diliman were the government agencies specified by respondents to provide HACCP information. According to the respondents who graduated from tertiary education in food technology and food science related fields, academic institutions offering undergraduate degree in food technology programs now covered HACCP in their curricula. Majority of the respondents who had some level of HACCP knowledge still perceived that HACCP information from available sources were limited. Even if the information were made available HACCP team members still felt that they were not generally given adequate time to fully comprehend it. In the Philippines, HACCP information dissemination systems usually comprised of seminars/workshops that
Table 3 Barriers to HACCP principle adherence by HACCP team members from micro- to small-scale meat and beverage processing industries Barrier
Subcategories
Percentage distribution (%) Meat industry Team 1 (n ¼ 10)
Knowledge
Attitude
Behavior
Beverage industry Team 2 (n ¼ 8)
Team 1 (n ¼ 4)
Team 2 (n ¼ 5)
Non-awareness No previous exposure to HACCP principles Awareness Once heard or read Familiarity >1 exposure but without full understanding
40
100
25
80
40
0
50
0
20
0
25
20
Agreement Full-belief in HACCP principles Commitment Pledge to adopt No response Lack of knowledge of HACCP principles
30
0
25
20
40
0
25
20
30
100
50
60
100
100
100
100
No response Lack of knowledge of HACCP principles
n, number of team members per establishment.
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
21
Table 4 Knowledge-based barriers to HACCP principle adherence identified by HACCP team members from micro-small-scale meat and beverage processing industries Knowledge acquisition barriers
Percentage distribution (%) Meat industry
Beverage industry
Team 1 (n ¼ 10)
Team 2 (n ¼ 8)
Team 1 (n ¼ 4)
Team 2 (n ¼ 5)
Sources of HACCP information are obtained from. . . . . .Industry intrinsic sources . . .Co-worker . . .No response . . .Industry extrinsic sources like . . .Seminar/workshop conducted by. . . . . .Government . . .Academe . . .No response
60 40
0 100
50 50
0 100
40 10 50
0 0 100
50 10 50
20 0 80
Accessibility of HACCP information from identified source is. . . . . .Easy . . .Not easy . . .No response
0 90 10
0 0 100
0 75 25
20 0 80
Adequacy of HACCP information from identified source is. . . . . .Satisfactory . . .Not satisfactory . . .No response
10 80 10
0 0 100
25 75 0
0 20 80
Adequacy of time to comprehend HACCP information from identified sources is. . . . . .Satisfactory . . .Not satisfactory . . .No response
10 80 10
0 0 100
0 75 25
20 0 80
n, number of team members per establishment; total„100% due to multiple answers.
are characteristically providing copious amount of information for short periods of time. Evaluations of the efficacy of such HACCP seminar/workshops, however, are rarely done. 3.4. Attitude and behavior levels In terms of attitude and behavior-related barriers, this study considers non-awareness to be translated to the inability of the team members to develop the proper attitude toward the HACCP guideline. In fact, inadequate knowledge level is the reason for non-adoption of the guideline. To the survey respondents who only reached knowledge levels of awareness and familiarity, agreement and commitment were fortunately already expressed. Ideally, HACCP team members should have attained full comprehension to develop the proper attitude towards the guideline. Theoretically, the cognitive-behavior model developed in this study should require that each member must have full knowledge of what the HACCP guideline is all about, develop an action concept of what appropriate behavior would lead to the efficient functioning of the HACCP plan, develop positive attitudes towards HACCP procedures and a belief that the team is capable of implementing plans (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). This
model follows the basic concept of experiential learning where awareness is a requisite for expansion of skill performance (Bandura, 1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Stage & Associates, 1993). The HACCP learner therefore, must comprehend the guideline to be able to develop positive attitude and behavior towards it. The application of the cognitive-behavior barrier model for HACCP guideline adherence could still be further studied particularly for HACCP team members who belong to establishments, which are already HACCP compliant. Comparison of results generated in this study which, is based on responses of HACCP team members from teams which are still in its early stage of HACCP plan implementation, must be compared with the results obtained from responses of those who belonged to HACCP compliant processors. Only at this point could the model be fully evaluated and appreciated.
4. Summary and recommendations The cognitive-behavior barrier model to HACCP guideline adherence designed in the study presents the sequence of barriers that must be overcome by HACCP team member designates to finally reach a point conducive to HACCP adherence. The model starts with
22
Ma.P.V. Azanza, M.B.V. Zamora-Luna / Food Control 16 (2005) 15–22
knowledge acquisition followed by proper attitude development leading to eventual behavioral change targeting adherence. The model tries to provide niches for possible identifiable barriers within the major categories cited. The study was conducted to analyze barriers that impede HACCP guideline adherence of 27 HACCP team members from four micro- to small-scale Philippine food processors. The study established that nonawareness of respondents of the HACCP guidelines was the major barrier to adherence. Currently the major external source of HACCP information for the team members is the national government mainly through seminars/workshops. Respondents showed an optimistic attitude toward HACCP guideline implementation despite their low HACCP knowledge competence level. It is evident that the management responsible for the HACCP team membership needs to fully appreciate the fundamental concept of the group to be multidisciplinary. The respondents from HACCP teams were found to be multidisciplinary have been formed only accidentally since the processors involved had limited employees and had to include everyone to the team. More intensive knowledge-based intervention strategies specifically designed for HACCP team members must be formulated and implemented as an initial step to achieve HACCP guideline adherence. Furthermore, government and other sources of HACCP information must continue to advocate HACCP adherence in Philippine food industries. Additional efforts on a national scale must be exerted to make HACCP information more accessible. The usefulness of the developed HACCP guideline cognitive-behavior barrier model could still be further studied. Results from this study should be used to better educate HACCP instructors and industry implementors. References Bandura, A. (1986). A social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P. A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999). Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(15), 1458–1465.
Fernandez, D. G., & Alegre, E. N. (1988). Sarap: Essays on Philippine food. Manila, Philippines: Mr. and Mrs. Publishing Company. Fogden, M. (2000). The regulatory context in the EU. In M. Brown (Ed.), HACCP in the meat industry. England: Woodhead Publishing Limited. Gatchalian, M. (1989). Sensory Evaluation Methods for Quality Assessment and Development. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines College of Home Economics. Gilling, S. J., Taylor, E. A., Kane, K., & Taylor, J. Z. (2001). Successful hazards analysis critical control point implementation in the United Kingdom: understanding the barriers through the use of a behavioral adherence model. Journal of Food Protection, 64(5), 710–715. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1987). Joining together group theory and group skills. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Marfil, M. P., & Pablo, C. (2002). 1700 troops coming, big number ‘‘normal’’ for Balikatan 02–2 set next month. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17(102), A1–A18. NACMCF (National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods) (1999). Hazard analysis and critical control point principles and application guidelines. In K. E. Stevenson, & D. T. Bernard (Eds.), HACCP a systematic approach to food safety (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: The Food Processors Institute. Pablo, C., Javellana, J. L., & Marfil, M. P. (2002). And 300 more going to Basilan. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17(102), A1–A18. Panisello, P. J., & Quantick, P. C. (2001). Technical barriers to hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP). Food Control, 12, 165– 173. Pathman, D. E., Konrad, T. R., Freed, G. L., Freeman, V. A., & Koch, G. G. (1996). The awareness-to-adherence model of steps to clinical guideline compliance. Medical Care, 34(9), 873– 889. Ramos, F. V. R. (1997). Memorandum from the President (May 27, 1997): Accreditation Program for Food Exporters (pp. 1–5). Office of the President of the Philippines, Malaca~ nang, Philippines. Stage, F. K., & Associates (1993). Linking theory to practice case studies from working with college students. Accelerated Devt., Inc Muncie, Indiana. SCRA (Supreme Court Reports Annotated) (1997). Ta~ nada vs. Angara (Vol. 272, pp. 18, 40–41). Quezon City, Philippines: LPB, Inc. Suwanrangsi, S. (2000). HACCP implementation in the Thai fisheries industry. Food Control, 11, 377–382. Taylor, E. (2001). HACCP in small companies: benefit or burden. Food Control, 12, 217–222. Torres, D. H. (2000). Role of government in HACCP audit: a Cuban perspective. Food Control, 11, 365–369. Wallace, C., & Williams, T. (2001). Pre-requisites: a help or a hindrance to HACCP. Food Control, 12, 234–240. WHO (World Health Organization) (1999). Strategies for implementing HACCP in small and/or less developed businesses. WHO Document WHO/SDE/PHE/FS/99.7. Geneva: WHO.